Can you deal with inclusions?

[OTL]

I've been having this battle with myself for a long time...color VS. inclusion. To what level should you pass a stone? Just want to hear your thoughts about good color stones with a lot of inclusions. Some are distracting enough to notice, but they are so affordable and color is so good.
For instance, this sweet 1.5ct mahenge spinel, the next is a 2.7ct yellow unheated sapphire, and following a 3.5ct blue spinel with bubbles.
Last one is a cuprian, since most cuprians are included, I assume it is easier for one to accept the clarity on this stone than others?
Would you accept the type of inclusions of these stones?

 

[airplay355]

I don't like when there's a major visible inclusion in one spot of the stone. It draws attention to itself when the rest of the stone looks fine. When the entire stone has inclusions it's more tolerable. Natural untreated rubies come to mind. I'm not sure if those count as inclusions, but those imperfections I wouldn't mind.

I could only deal with the last stone you posted.

 

[LD]

All of those photos are highly magnified and it's a different answer if you're looking at them magnified or not! Some of those inclusions will be difficult to see when they are at a normal viewing distance. For example the inclusions in the yellow stone will probably only show when the light hits the stone in a certain direction. If a stone has minor inclusions like this then in normal (unmagnified) viewing conditions all you should see is colour.

As you said in your initial post, in some gemstones inclusions are acceptable and expected and I'm more tolerant in those gems.

 

[ChrisA222]

Dont like em, at all. I had a 5ct Rubellite that was an awesome stone...but couldn't deal with the inclusions and sold it for a smaller, but cleaner one.

The only kinds of inclusions I like are intentional ones...where they add to the beauty of the stone, like rutilized quartz. Otherwise I consider them flaws and don't accept them.

In the attached photo, there are both examples. Here is the Rubellite I couldn't deal with, with its typical Rubellite inclusions, along with a Tourmaline which I actually like, because of the needle inclusions. I hope this makes sense...

 

[OTL]

LD

I think all the inclusions above will still be distracting even not magnified. It is on that level where
it can not pass eye clean. Especially when it's positioned on one spot of the stone like airplay explained. I agree
if it's numerous tiny inclusions it would be tolerable.

Considering the size of the yellow stone, the net-like inclusion will be eye visible no matter whether there is light.
It may pass eye clean on certain direction though.

And I think sometimes it is psychological hint that are making decisions whether
to see the dominant color or see the inclusions that might secretly freak you out...

Chris

You really only love perfect stones, they need to be clean, precision cut and not small Such perfectionism makes me
guess you are a virgo

 

[minousbijoux]

OTL, are you asking the question because you want to know how we feel about inclusions in general, or are you asking for feedback on the stones you've posted? My pat response - sorry - is to say that it really doesn't matter what we think, its your opinion that matters! If you're asking it in a conversational way , then I would say that I don't like eye visible inclusions, unless I think they add to the stone's attractiveness. I don't like the big dark spot types (technical term "booger" inclusions ), and I don't like anomalies that draw the eye away to a certain area of the stone. If, on the other hand, the stone is scattered with bubbles, or cool needles, or veils, it would likely add to the visual attraction of the stone for me.

I also agree with LD and was going to say the same thing - those stones are so magnified as to show tons of imperfections that you would not normally see without at least a loupe. At that point, I don't care

 

[minousbijoux]

LD

You really only love perfect stones, they need to be clean, precision cut and not small

If you think this, then you don't know LD! She has some of the coolest - and loved - examples of included stones.

 

[OTL]

LD

You really only love perfect stones, they need to be clean, precision cut and not small

If you think this, then you don't know LD! She has some of the coolest - and loved - examples of included stones.

Hi Minou

This was actually a talk with Chris, you must missed his name from my last post.

And to answer your question, I was looking for everybody's tolerance level in general, and these were some examples that you are free to leave a thought

 

[ChrisA222]

OTL, Im a Pisces....

You are right though, I do not like stones that are not eye-clean. I also don't like stones that aren't well-cut/precision-cut, and I don't like small stones. Thats just me though, everyone is different. With my preferences and budget, it means I won't get stones like FCDs, etc. I will also make exceptions when it comes to color, as I'd rather have a larger, perfectly cut stone with good color than a flawed, small, or poorly cut stone with exceptional color. Thats my opinion and others don't or won't agree, and thats fine.

Trust me..I've bought (and then sold!) enough stones to know what I like and do not like..haha...definately paid my dues in that department!

 

[jbkhere]

Now I'm sure my newbie-ness is showing. But most inclusions don't bother me a bit. If the color knocks the breath out of me - that's what gets me. Don't get me wrong I've seen stones so terribly included I couldn't stand it. But given the stones posted and the magnification used - I'd happily own, set and wear them all!

 

[cm366]

Hey OTL, love those colours!

As Minou says, I don't like large or dark individual inclusions, but I'm much more forgiving of evenly spread silk or tiny bubbles. I've got a couple of very clean spessartites and a couple of very sugary glowy spessartites where you can't pick individual bubbles at 12 inches - the colour and the overall look of the stone is much more important to me. That said, I'm working off of a limited budget and I've previously purchased stones like this one which have good colour, a great price and an inclusion that's extremely noticeable on photo and from one very distinct angle in hand. This will be a pendant, with the inclusion oriented so you'd have to be standing on the wearer's feet to see it, and it was quite a bargain relative to a clean stone with the same stats.

 

[airplay355]

That's a beautiful stone! It looks like spearmint candy

 

[chrono]

On the surface, your question is very simple but the answer is not so. Everything depends on a combination of various factors. Obviously, as mentioned, the colour has to be TDF, the price extremely low and the stone must be sizeable for it to sort of excuse the inclusion. Some types of inclusions are not easily seen (white or fine), which I don't mind. I do not like it to be distracting. Given the choice, my preference is the type where it is very fine but evenly spread so it doesn't scream "inclusion" to the eye. It sort of blends in very well. That said, I cannot set these in a ring because I am much more particular about ring stones but would happily set and wear them as pendant stones. Nobody is going to peer that closely, plus the colour and size are going to stand out at a distance anyway.

 

[colorluvr]

I'm with Chrono in that I'm less picky about inclusions for a stone that I put in a pendant. I have an included 2.22ct EC mahenge that just screams color and I hope to sent it in a pendant someday. It does have a distracting inclusion which would drive me nuts in a ring, but I think it would look just fine in a pendant. The selling point (other than the incredible color) was the fact that it was probably half of what it would have been without the inclusion.

I do have a couple of rings with visible inclusions, but they are the type that you have to know what you are looking for to see them and once again, they saved me some money. In both instances the color was just too good to say no to the stone.

 

[minousbijoux]

LD

You really only love perfect stones, they need to be clean, precision cut and not small

If you think this, then you don't know LD! She has some of the coolest - and loved - examples of included stones.

Hi Minou

This was actually a talk with Chris, you must missed his name from my last post.

And to answer your question, I was looking for everybody's tolerance level in general, and these were some examples that you are free to leave a thought

Oops, boy did I mess that up! Sorry about that OTL

 

[jstarfireb]

I typically choose eye-clean stones only. However, I have a few stones that have some inclusions because they were too good to pass up. When I do choose a stone with inclusions, I typically prefer them either located in the periphery (so they can be covered by prongs) or scattered throughout the stone (rather than one big goober that immediately draws the eye). I think I would be OK with the cuprian but none of the other stones you posted.

 

[kenny]

I'll tolerate inclusions in FCDs that I would not tolerate in a D-Z diamond.
FCDs with nice color are in very short supply and you take what you can get or you'd have to wait forever.

 

[jstarfireb]

You are right though, I do not like stones that are not eye-clean. I also don't like stones that aren't well-cut/precision-cut, and I don't like small stones.

Chris, I have a lot of the same preferences. I buy precision-cut stones almost exclusively, and if not precision, they at least have to be well-cut. I have a major preference for eye-clean stones (but as I mentioned, I have a couple that aren't). The difference is that I adore small stones and feel that stones larger than about 7-8 mm are just too big on my hand. And my fingers aren't small. My sweet spot for stone size is 5-6mm, but I've bought and set 3-4mm stones with no reservations. Anyway, I'm digressing, but I wanted you to know you're not the only one who goes for precision-cut and eye-clean almost all the time.

 

[beaujolais]

I Love inclusions unless they risk the integrity of the stone or ruin the color or performance.

 

[JewelFreak]

For me, it depends on the individual stone -- some inclusions are cool, as in rutilated quartz, & occasionally I see a stone with an inclusion that's interesting -- but I don't seem to buy it. So I guess generally, I like them EC, but they don't have to be loupe-clean.

I could easily love CM's cuprian -- un-magnified, those wouldn't bother me at all & the color is tdf, nice cut too. Cut makes my heart pitty-pat as much as color -- a not-too-great cut bothers me no end. I don't think I could live with any of the examples you posted, though. If something screams color but has boogers that bother me, I tell myself a more appealing one will come along. It always does -- but then I can't afford it!

--- Laurie

 

[Lula]

I Love inclusions unless they risk the integrity of the stone or ruin the color or performance.

+1
I've become more tolerant of inclusions in colored stones now that I've spent some time on CS and learned about all the treatments (many not disclosed or known by vendors). Some -- not all -- inclusions indicate that the stone is natural, so I consider them to be a form of insurance that I'm buying the real thing. That may be a false sense of insurance, given the sophistication of the gem treatments these days, but at least for now it works for me. I would take the inclusion into account in the design of the setting -- not because of durability issues, but because I think stones with inclusions are more attractive in simple or "rustic" settings rather than halos or with sidetones, etc.

 

[LD]

I've been mulling over this question and actually a lot of new people who start collecting coloured gemstones believe that they should be eye clean. This is actually NOT the case. With diamonds, yes. With coloured gemstones, absolutely not.

My advice to anybody who is looking to start a decent, wide reaching collection, is that if you look for perfection in every stone, your collection will be very limited and ultimately you'll miss many many many stones (ones that are worthy of a collection).

To give you an example, one gemstone that is valuable, has risen considerably in price over the years and is probably (in good examples) one of the rarest stones to own is Alexandrite. Now then, if I have a 3ct phenomenal colour changing Alex with an inclusion (or two) and a 1ct eye clean phenomenal colour changing Alex, which do you think will be the more valuable? Actually, in this instance size would trump the inclusion. If you're looking for an eye clean Paraiba Tourmaline (any size) against the same quality/colour Paraiba Tourmaline but a few inclusions, then (a) you probably will be looking for years and (b) when you do find it it may be out of your price range and (c) you'll have missed out on a stone that you may never get again.

I would implore coloured stoners to look at inclusions as part of nature's make up. So long as they don't detract from the beauty of the stone they are not an issue! Now with diamonds it's the reverse!

 

[OTL]

I've been mulling over this question and actually a lot of new people who start collecting coloured gemstones believe that they should be eye clean. This is actually NOT the case. With diamonds, yes. With coloured gemstones, absolutely not.

My advice to anybody who is looking to start a decent, wide reaching collection, is that if you look for perfection in every stone, your collection will be very limited and ultimately you'll miss many many many stones (ones that are worthy of a collection).

To give you an example, one gemstone that is valuable, has risen considerably in price over the years and is probably (in good examples) one of the rarest stones to own is Alexandrite. Now then, if I have a 3ct phenomenal colour changing Alex with an inclusion (or two) and a 1ct eye clean phenomenal colour changing Alex, which do you think will be the more valuable? Actually, in this instance size would trump the inclusion. If you're looking for an eye clean Paraiba Tourmaline (any size) against the same quality/colour Paraiba Tourmaline but a few inclusions, then (a) you probably will be looking for years and (b) when you do find it it may be out of your price range and (c) you'll have missed out on a stone that you may never get again.

I would implore coloured stoners to look at inclusions as part of nature's make up. So long as they don't detract from the beauty of the stone they are not an issue! Now with diamonds it's the reverse!

Thanks LD for your input, can you upload a picture of the most included color stone you own?

 

[OTL]

Hey OTL, love those colours!

As Minou says, I don't like large or dark individual inclusions, but I'm much more forgiving of evenly spread silk or tiny bubbles. I've got a couple of very clean spessartites and a couple of very sugary glowy spessartites where you can't pick individual bubbles at 12 inches - the colour and the overall look of the stone is much more important to me. That said, I'm working off of a limited budget and I've previously purchased stones like this one which have good colour, a great price and an inclusion that's extremely noticeable on photo and from one very distinct angle in hand. This will be a pendant, with the inclusion oriented so you'd have to be standing on the wearer's feet to see it, and it was quite a bargain relative to a clean stone with the same stats.

The super thin needle will not bug me at all!
Beautiful stone, it would look lovely in a pendant!

 

[OTL]

For me, it depends on the individual stone -- some inclusions are cool, as in rutilated quartz, & occasionally I see a stone with an inclusion that's interesting -- but I don't seem to buy it. So I guess generally, I like them EC, but they don't have to be loupe-clean.

I could easily love CM's cuprian -- un-magnified, those wouldn't bother me at all & the color is tdf, nice cut too. Cut makes my heart pitty-pat as much as color -- a not-too-great cut bothers me no end. I don't think I could live with any of the examples you posted, though. If something screams color but has boogers that bother me, I tell myself a more appealing one will come along. It always does -- but then I can't afford it!

--- Laurie

I agree, it really depends. And you have to see it in person to make a decision. The inclusions may look scary on these photo, but I have a feeling the yellow sapphire will probably looks just fine at arm distance in person. The price of this sapphire is about a third of what it should be if at VS clarity level.

 

[OTL]

On the surface, your question is very simple but the answer is not so. Everything depends on a combination of various factors. Obviously, as mentioned, the colour has to be TDF, the price extremely low and the stone must be sizeable for it to sort of excuse the inclusion. Some types of inclusions are not easily seen (white or fine), which I don't mind. I do not like it to be distracting. Given the choice, my preference is the type where it is very fine but evenly spread so it doesn't scream "inclusion" to the eye. It sort of blends in very well. That said, I cannot set these in a ring because I am much more particular about ring stones but would happily set and wear them as pendant stones. Nobody is going to peer that closely, plus the colour and size are going to stand out at a distance anyway.

I'm afraid the price will not be extremely low when the it is evenly spread. Like spess garnet, they usually carry tiny inclusions like that, and I don't see any vendor asking a extremely low price just because of that. Normally they will just describe it as the nature of this kind of gem, and explain that it is already a very clean one considering it is a spessartite.

 

[LD]

I've been mulling over this question and actually a lot of new people who start collecting coloured gemstones believe that they should be eye clean. This is actually NOT the case. With diamonds, yes. With coloured gemstones, absolutely not.

My advice to anybody who is looking to start a decent, wide reaching collection, is that if you look for perfection in every stone, your collection will be very limited and ultimately you'll miss many many many stones (ones that are worthy of a collection).

To give you an example, one gemstone that is valuable, has risen considerably in price over the years and is probably (in good examples) one of the rarest stones to own is Alexandrite. Now then, if I have a 3ct phenomenal colour changing Alex with an inclusion (or two) and a 1ct eye clean phenomenal colour changing Alex, which do you think will be the more valuable? Actually, in this instance size would trump the inclusion. If you're looking for an eye clean Paraiba Tourmaline (any size) against the same quality/colour Paraiba Tourmaline but a few inclusions, then (a) you probably will be looking for years and (b) when you do find it it may be out of your price range and (c) you'll have missed out on a stone that you may never get again.

I would implore coloured stoners to look at inclusions as part of nature's make up. So long as they don't detract from the beauty of the stone they are not an issue! Now with diamonds it's the reverse!

Thanks LD for your input, can you upload a picture of the most included color stone you own?

Mmmm, well this is difficult because it depends what you want to see but here's a great example of something (looking at the photos you've posted above) that you would reject because it's not eye clean.

First of all, look at the photo of this gem on my hand. All you see is colour right? Then look up close and see there are a myriad of inclusions (including one that looks like a very cool spaceship!) This photo was taken at just the right angle to show you this particular larger inclusion - at other angles it disappears (see the photo after it). The last photo is a close up of the spaceship. Now go and see if you can buy a Paraiba Tourmaline in this cut and similar carat weight ............. so my point is, if I had screened this out because of inclusions how foolish I would have been!

 

[chrono]

Here's an example of a spessartite that I purchased because the colour is great, price is excellent and the inclusions are not obvious once set in a pendant. It is over 5 carats and cost me somewhere in the ballpark of $100/ct. I know I cannot get anything with this colour and this size for this price if it was clean.

I added my hand shot as well so you can see what it looks like as closely as possible to what I see. Can you pick out the inclusions? I know I cannot. Not only that, this is a magnified picture as well. You'll have to excuse the yellow colour though as I couldn't capture the orange at all. My camera hates orange and makes all my oranges yellow.

 

[OTL]

LD, your paraiba has a color to die for, If you ever want to sell, I call dibs and the inclusion is much much better than the cuprian I posted. I will be stupid if I am bothered by those thin inclusions for such a rare stone. And we really should not include paraiba as an example, boy are they the rarest stones in the world.

Chrono, I would have to say you handshot photo is quite amazing, the brownish color inclusion from the first photo does disappear! Maybe because the photo is a little blurry?

Thank you for all your inputs. Now I am more towards seeing color rather than playing the find out the inclusion game

 

[chrono]

Darn it, do I have to stand at the back of the mile long line for LD's paraiba which we all know she'll never sell?

OTL,
I apologize for being a very poor photographer, hence the blurry picture but if you stare long and hard at it, you will see the line. In person, it is only seen at certain angles as well because of the brilliance and amazing saturation of the stone. This is why it makes an excellent pendant stone.